MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068132419 · doi:10.1139/t10-082

Effect of anchor width on pullout capacity of strip anchors in sand

2011· article· en· W2068132419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vishwas Nandkishor Khatri, Jyant Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbedmentGeotechnical engineeringPrincipal stressLimit analysisGeologyFinite element methodStress (linguistics)Upper and lower boundsOverburden pressureMathematicsStructural engineeringMaterials scienceGeometryEngineeringComposite materialMathematical analysisShear stress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By incorporating the variation of peak soil friction angle ([Formula: see text]) with mean principal stress (σm), the effect of anchor width (B) on vertical uplift resistance of a strip anchor plate has been examined. The anchor was embedded horizontally in a granular medium. The analysis was performed using lower bound finite element limit analysis and linear programming. An iterative procedure, proposed recently by the authors, was implemented to incorporate the variation of [Formula: see text] with σm. It is noted that for a given embedment ratio, with a decrease in anchor width (B), (i) the uplift factor (Fγ) increases continuously and (ii) the average ultimate uplift pressure (qu) decreases quite significantly. The scale effect becomes more pronounced at greater embedment ratios.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207